YouTube Censors U.S. Senate Testimony on Voter Fraud in Nevada

/in , , , , , /by

On December 16, Attorney Jesse Binnall testified before the U.S. Congress on what his team alleges were instances of voter fraud in Nevada. His five minute testimony is packed with details; it is a must-watch video for anyone wanting to learn more about what may have really happened during the 2020 presidential election, not only in Nevada, but across America.

Apparently YouTube agreed. Click here to get the message “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”

What guidelines?

Online videos of Binnall’s testimony can still be found, undoubtedly with suppressed views, on the Facebook page of the Nevada Republican Party, as well as probably on this C-Span archive if you’re willing to rut around until you find it, and even HERE – get this, on a sparsely viewed YouTube channel – 116 subscribers – called “Jazz Rock Fusion & Synthesizer Music.” Apparently this lover of music loves freedom as well, because this is the channel’s only political video among scores of soundscapes and jams and assorted tunes. Thank you!

Binnall’s road to the U.S. Senate passed through the courthouses of Nevada, where the cards were stacked and rigged against his team at every stage, from factfinding to getting a fair hearing. Here’s a transcript of Binnall and his team’s Nevada appearance before a Nevada judge on December 3. But what was a labored, obstructed and ultimately fruitless effort in Nevada was distilled into five minutes of some of the most damning testimony you will every hear on December 16 before a U.S. Senate committee.

Which is why YouTube banned it back when it was hot, back when it was going viral. This is a key strategy of online censors today – they stamp out the fire when it’s hot and spreading fast, but they let the embers of truth burn on the obscure sites and platforms. If a fire ever reaches critical mass, they turn back on the fire hose. And sadly, it’s working.

For those who won’t forget, or who don’t want to pretend that nothing happened, find these embers of truth. Find these source videos. And find the transcripts. A transcript of Binnall’s testimony can also be found on an official U.S. Senate website, but only in the less searchable PDF format. For that reason, Binnall’s five minute’s of remarks, in their entirety, are written here:

Jesse Binnall’s Opening Statement – U.S. Senate Hearing on Election Fraud – December 16, 2020:

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and members of the committee.

This year thousands upon thousands of Nevada voters had their voices canceled out by election fraud and invalid ballots. Here’s how it happened:

On August 3, 2020, after a rushed special session, Nevada legislators made drastic changes to the state’s election law by adopting a bill known as AB 4. The vulnerabilities of this bill were obvious. It provided for universal mail in voting without sufficient safeguards to authenticate voters or ensure the fundamental requirement that only one ballot was sent to each legally qualified voter. This was aggravated by election officials’ failure to clean known deficiencies in their voter rolls.

Because of AB 4, the number of mailed ballots rocketed from about 70,000 in 2016 to over 690,000 this year. The election was inevitably riddled with fraud and our hotline never stopped ringing. While the media and the Democrats accused us of making it all up our team began chasing down every lead. Our evidence came both from data scientists and from brave whistleblowers. Here’s what we found:

Over 42,000 people voted more than once. Our experts were able to make this determination by reviewing the list of actual voters and comparing it to other voters with the same name, address, and date of birth. This method was also able to catch people using different variations of their first name such as William and Bill and individuals who registered both under a married name and a maiden name.

At least 1,500 dead people are recorded as voting as shown by comparing the list of mail voters with the Social Security death records.

More than 19,000 people voted, even though they didn’t live in Nevada. This does not include military voters or students. These voters were identified by comparing the list of voters with the US Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, among other sources.

About 8,000 people voted from non-existent addresses. Here we cross-reference voters with the coding accuracy support system [CASS], which allowed our experts to identify undeliverable addresses.

Over 15,000 votes were cast from commercial or vacant addresses. Our experts found these voters by analyzing official US Postal Service records that flag non-residential addresses and addresses vacant for more than 90 days.

Incredibly, almost 4,000 non-citizens also voted as determined by comparing official DMV records of non-citizens to the list of actual voters in the2020 election.

The list goes on. All in all, our experts identified 130,000 unique instances of voter fraud in Nevada, but the actual numbers are almost certainly higher. Our data scientists made these calculations not by estimations or statistical sampling, but by analyzing and comparing the list of actual voters with other lists, most of which are publicly available.

To put it simply, they explain their methods, so others can check their work. Our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.

Two Clark County Technical employees came forward, completely independent of each other, and explained that they discovered that the number of votes recorded by voting machines and stored on USB drives would change between the time the polls were closed at night and when they were reopened the next morning. In other words, votes were literally appearing and disappearing in the dead of night.

When we attempted to verify the integrity of these voting machines, we were only allowed a useless visual inspection of the outside a USB drive. We were denied a forensic examination.

Finally, our investigation also uncovered a campaign to illegally incentivize votes from marginalized populations, by requiring people to prove that they voted in order to receive raffle tickets for gift cards, televisions, and more.

Our determined team verified these irregularities without any of the tools of law enforcement such as grand jury, subpoenas, or FBI agents. Instead, we had less than a month using critical thinking and elbow grease to compile our evidence. We tried to obtain testimony or documents from Clark County officials, but they obstructed and stonewalled. When we filed suit, state officials and even courts delayed proceedings for days, but then offered us merely hours to brief and argue our cases.

In wrapping up Mr. Chairman, these findings are disturbing, alarming, and unacceptable in a free society. Our free and fair election tradition is a precious treasure that we are charged with protecting. Government by the consent of the governed is hard to win and easy to lose. Every single time a fraudulent or illegal vote is cast, the vote of an honest citizen is canceled out. Thank you.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Trump Demands an Honest Election in a Tweet — Watch!

/in , , , , , , /by

In an Epoch Times column titled “Trump Shares Video Calling on Supporters to Contact Legislators to ‘Demand an Honest Election’ reporter Tom Ozimek wrote:

President Donald Trump shared a video on Thursday urging his supporters to contact state legislators with regard to allegations of voting irregularities in the Nov. 3 election and “demand an honest election and an honest count.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1342098544547794944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1342098544547794944%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensjournal.us%2Ftrump-shares-video-calling-on-supporters-to-contact-legislators-to-demand-an-honest-election%2F

Ozimek conclude with:

Peter Navarro, an adviser to Trump, last week released a detailed report summarizing election irregularity allegations in six battleground states, concluding that they are serious enough to warrant an urgent probe and substantial enough to potentially overturn the results.

Since Election Day, Trump and third-party groups have pursued legal challenges to the outcome of the election in the six battleground states. None of the efforts have so far borne fruit.

©President Donald J. Trump. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Rudy Giuliani Speaks Out During Christmas Address ‘This is Really Going to Blow Up’

VIDEO: Congressman Ted Budd — What I’m doing in rejecting electoral votes on January 6th is ‘totally Constitutional’

/in , , , , , , /by

Another member of Congress Rep. Theodore Paul “Ted” Budd (R-NC) joined the Republican led effort to reject electoral votes from states with rampant fraud. One American News Networks’ John Hines spoke with the lawmaker to learn more about his decision.

ABOUT CONGRESSMAN TED BUDD

Ted Budd represents North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District and is serving his second term in the 116th United States Congress.

Ted brings an outsider’s perspective to Washington, having never held elective office. When an opportunity presented itself after redistricting opened up North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District in 2016, Ted decided to run and bring a businessman’s outlook to our nation’s capital.

Ted sits on the Financial Services Committee, where he uses his real world experience to roll back the restrictive regulations that strangle job creation in our country. Working at a young age on his family’s cattle and chicken farm and for their janitorial and landscaping business, Ted learned the importance of work ethic and common sense decision making. He brings his strong belief in God, family, and country to his job each and every day.

Ted and his wife Amy Kate have three children and live in Davie County, NC. He holds an MBA from Wake Forest University and a Masters in Educational Leadership from Dallas Theological Seminary.

©One America News Network. All rights reserved.

New Legal Memo Outlines Path to Victory For Trump Supporters

/in , , , , , /by

Christmas gift or miracle, joy to the world.

New Legal Memo Brings Hope to Trump Supporters This Christmas

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney, December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.

However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.

In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.

The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.

If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.

In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.

In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.

Round Two:  The United States Must Enter the Fray

Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.

When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.

The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.

The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.

Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas

In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.

That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand.

If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.

Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

150 House Democrats sign letter backing Biden to reenter Iran nuclear deal

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Radical Hater Warnock in New Ad

French Police Arrest 4 More Muslims in Charlie Hebdo Islamic Terror Attack

Notorious Nazi Student Group – Students Justice Palestine- SJP FAILS in Legal Effort to Overturn Ban at Fordham University

China Uses Zoom To Spy on Americans, Zoom Shared US User Data With Beijing to Ensure Chinese Market Access

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

POLL: 78% Of Republicans Believe Presidential Election Was Fraudulent

/in , , , , /by

78% of Republicans believe that Joe Biden was illegitimately elected president, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll that was released Thursday found.

When asked if they believed Joe Biden was legitimately elected president, 96% of Democrats said yes, while only 20% of Republicans said the same. Just 3% of Democrats said that they did not believe Joe Biden was legitimately elected, the poll found.

Overall, 62% of respondents said that they believed Joe Biden was legitimately elected president, while 37% believed he was not legitimately elected.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the results of the presidential election were fraudulent and called for investigations into allegations of voter fraud. Multiple lawsuits were filed attempting to overturn the results of the election in several states.

Republicans and Democrats were similarly split when asked if it was time for Trump to concede the election now that the Electoral College has cast a majority of their votes for Biden.

Just 37% of Republicans believed that it was time for Trump to concede, while 95% of Democrats said the same, according to the poll. 70% of the total respondents said that Trump should concede the election, while 26% said that he should not.

Both Republicans and Democrats said that they believed Joe Biden would “significantly dismantle” Trump’s legacy while in office with 74% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, and 66% of respondents overall agreeing.

Half of all respondents said that history will view Trump as a “failed president.” 16% said that Trump will be viewed as a “fair president,” 13% said that he will be viewed as a “good president,” and 16% said that he will be viewed as a “great president.”

Only 1% of Democrats said that history will assess Trump as a great president, against 40% of Republicans who responded similarly.

The vast majority of Democrats – 87% – said that history will view Trump as a failed president, while 12% of Republicans agreed.

The USA Today/Suffolk University poll was conducted between Dec. 16 and Dec. 20. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Blocks Standalone $2,000 Stimulus Payments Bill, House To Vote On Proposal Monday

‘The New Birtherism’: Biden Attorney Trashes Trump Lawsuits And Fraud Claims

VIDEO: Campaign 2020 — Post-Election Special — Massive Fraud

REPORT: Majority Of House Democrats Endorse Return To Iran Deal

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How the 2020 Election was Presented to Us vs. How It Really Was

/in , , , , , /by

A demonstrator stands with supporters of President Donald Trump outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center where votes are being counted, on Nov. 6, 2020, in Philadelphia.

WATCH: How the election was presented to us vs. how it was.

RELATED ARTICLE: POLL: 78% Of Republicans Believe Presidential Election Was Fraudulent

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog entry was posted in Leftist election rigging by Eeyore. ©All rights reserved.

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Radical Hater Warnock in New Ad

/in , , , , , , /by

A Radical’s Radical: Raphael Warnock is too radical for Georgia

Thank you, CUFI. Raphael Warnock is a dangerous and radical anti-Semite, and he must not be elected to the United States Senate.

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Warnock in New Ad

By Washington Free Beacon, December 23, 2020

The political arm of the largest pro-Israel membership group in the United States launched an ad campaign Wednesday targeting Rev. Raphael Warnock, the Democratic candidate for Senate in the Georgia runoff.

The 30-second spot from Christians United for Israel Action Fund takes aim at both Warnock’s record of statements critical of Israel and his recent attack on evangelical Christians, traditionally a staunchly pro-Israel denomination.

The ad calls him “Radical Raphael Warnock” and says he is “preaching a gospel of hate.” The voiceover says “Warnock demonized Christians who stand with Israel,” a reference to his sermon after the opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem in 2018 in which he accused “mealy-mouthed evangelical preachers” of being “responsible for the mess that we found ourselves in … misquoting and misinterpreting the Scripture, talking about peace.”

A spokesperson for the group said the ad is backed by a six-figure digital and social media buy targeting pro-Israel voters in Georgia, where the organization has approximately 500,000 members, according to the spokesperson.

Last month, Pastor Jay Bailey, CUFI’s Georgia state director, published an op-ed criticizing Warnock’s “condemnations of Israel” as “disgusting.”

The organization announced this week it had reached 10 million members.

Warnock is locked in a tight race with incumbent senator Kelly Loeffler (R.). The runoff election will take place on Jan. 5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Newt Gingrich: Warnock is ‘most radical’ candidate ever nominated for U.S. Senate

GA. Democrat Candidate Raphael Warnock’s Involvement in Child-Abuse Case at Church Camp Which Led to HIS Arrest

Video Leaks of U.S. Senate Candidate Warnock’s Encounter With Police After BEATING HIS WIFE

Georgia Democrat Senate Candidate Raphael Warnock Under Investigation

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Payment Processers Escalate War on Digital Army

/in , , , /by

RedPill78, a “citizen journalist” operating in Washington DC, was banned from YouTube back in October. That was part of the coordinated assault by big tech on the so-called QAnon journalists. But QAnon is an inexact term, used by the establishment to push dissident journalists into a box: “Conspiracy theorists (as if conspiracies don’t exist) who think the Democratic party has been taken over by satanic, baby-eating pedophiles.”

This is a gross mischaracterization, designed to discourage anyone from paying attention to the work of the Q collective.

What RedPill78, and tens of thousands of citizen journalists like him are part of is better described as a digital army. They are a threat to the establishment because they are doing investigative work that controlled mainstream journalists in America have neither the time nor the permission to conduct.

For now, RedPill78 has not been silenced, because he has migrated to Rumble, DLive, Pilled, Odysee, and others. Alternative, constantly proliferating video platforms working on distributed servers, theoretically, can continue to broadcast online unless the whole internet is shut down. To take them down, that is, you might have to take down everything.

There are many ways the empire can strike back, however, and kicking dissidents off of the major video platforms is only one of them.

On December 17, in the middle of a live show, RedPill78 learned that PayPal had terminated his account. Without providing examples of how his content had transgressed, and providing only innocuous, vague explanation, PayPal took away RedPill78’s ability to accept donations or subscription payments.

This represents a major escalation in the ongoing assault on free speech, and like video deplatforming, it is being rolled out slowly but systematically. What RedPill78 has experienced is just the beginning. Laura Loomer has been banned from riding Uber, solely because of her political opinions. Lana Lokteff has been banned from having any bank accounts, again solely because of her political opinions.

None of these victims of financial deplatforming have violated First Amendment principles. “Hate speech” and “misinformation,” besides being highly subjective concepts, are protected forms of speech. If you listen to RedPill78’s body of work, there is nothing to justify censorship, much less financial aggression.

RedPill78 is a threat because he is investigating fraud and corruption, and connecting the dots. Listen to his findings. See for yourself how close he and others are getting to truths, which if spread far and wide, could be very inconvenient for America’s ruling class.

The Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency is considering a new rule that would bar banks from denying service for non-financial reasons, such as a customer’s political views. This could be implemented without approval of the U.S. Congress, but could be rescinded if Biden takes over the executive branch.

The Leftist dominated establishment should be careful what it wishes for. The instruments of repression they are perfecting with their big tech allies could be used against them, if enough Americans take the Red Pill.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Some Republican Senators Are on Board With Electoral College Challenge [+Video]

/in , , , , , /by

We the people are watching. We will primary the traitors and Democrats in RINO clothing.

We the people are watching.  As for Senate Majority Leader McConnell,  we will drag him over the finish line like a beached whale.

Some Republican Senators Are on Board With Electoral College Challenge: Rep. Taylor-Greene

By Jack Phillips, The Epoch Times, December 23, 2020:

Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said that some Republican senators will join an effort to challenge Electoral College votes when the Joint Session of Congress meets on Jan. 6.

The process requires one senator and one House representative to initiate. Other than Taylor-Greene, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) and a number of GOP House lawmakers have pledged they would challenge the votes.

“We have a very strong case, and our numbers are growing strong,” she said Tuesday on Newsmax of the effort. “We talked to senators and we’re good to go for this objection.”

Taylor-Greene did not say what senators would join the challenge. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen.-elect Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) have both suggested they might get involved, but there has been no public confirmation.

When an objection is filed during the Joint Session of Congress for key states that cast Electoral College votes for Joe Biden, each chamber would have to hold a debate for two hours on whether to disqualify a state’s votes. Then, a vote would have to be held in each chamber on whether to throw them out.

Taylor-Greene, meanwhile, added that she spoke with President Donald Trump about possibly challenging the votes, saying, “I didn’t run for Congress to sit by and be quiet, so I called the president.”

“I support him, I voted for him, just like everyone else and I’m happy to support him in this trying time,” she said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has reportedly told GOP senators not to partake in the challenge, while the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), told reporters that it’s likely to fail.

Thune said he heard of no Republicans willing to join the Rep. Brooks-led effort.

“In the Senate, it would go down like a shot dog,” Thune told reporters. “And I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense to put everybody through this when you know what the ultimate outcome is going to be.”

Other than Brooks and Taylor-Greene, Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Rep.-elect Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and others said they would join.

“We must stand up for the tens of millions of Americans who want answers to the irregularities surrounding this election,” Gooden said in his letter to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Cornyn (R-Texas). “It is our duty to ensure the integrity of our election is unwavering, and the American people deserve to feel confident their vote matters.”

Babin wrote that if Congress doesn’t investigate alleged voter fraud, he would object to the results. Around two-dozen Republicans in the House signed his letter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: RINO Senator Says Trump’s Last Hope to Challenge Election Will ‘Go Down Like a Shot Dog’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

President Trump Vetoes Defense Spending Bill, “It Is A Gift to China and Russia”

/in , , , , /by

President Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 Wednesday, calling it a “gift” to U.S. adversaries China and Russia, making good on a promise to veto it if it did not repeal a law that shields certain Big Tech companies from liabilities.

There is too much wrong with the bill.

https://twitter.com/AFCyberGator/status/1341535290377252866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1341535290377252866%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fpresident-trump-vetoes-defense-spending-bill-it-is-a-gift-to-china-and-russia.html%2F

“I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 6395 … My Administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security. Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions. It is a ‘gift’ to China and Russia,” the president wrote.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1339594787133919239?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1339594787133919239%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fpresident-trump-vetoes-defense-spending-bill-it-is-a-gift-to-china-and-russia.html%2F

The president denounced the legislation for not including language that would strip social media companies from the protections they enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The measure, adopted in 1996, prevents companies such as Twitter and Facebook from being sued by anyone claiming to be harmed by a post. Trump, who claims social media companies are biased against conservatives, has said Section 230 is a threat to national security.

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamic State Holiday Season Song: ‘Coldly Kill [Unbelievers] With Hate And Rage’; ‘Plan Your Perfect Killing Spree’; ‘#MerryChristmas’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

NYC: Muslim murders his daughter for being too ‘Americanized’ and not wanting to wear hijab

/in , , , /by

Witless Western feminists now have an annual event, World Hijab Day, in which they don hijabs in order to show solidarity with Muslim women in the West who supposedly experience abuse for wearing the hijab, although a great many of these incidents have been found to have been faked by the alleged victims. The real victims of abuse over wearing the hijab are much more often girls and women who don’t wear it, such as Ola Salem.

Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Amina Muse Ali was a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. 40 women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab. Alya Al-Safar’s Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain. Amira Osman Hamid faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab. An Egyptian girl, also named Amira, committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab. Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired. Women in Chechnya were police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab. Other women in Chechnya were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab.

Elementary school teachers in Tunisia were threatened with death for not wearing hijab. Syrian schoolgirls were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab. Women in Gaza were forced by Hamas to wear hijab. Women in Iran protested against the regime by daring to take off their hijabs. Women in London were threatened with murder by Muslim thugs if they didn’t wear hijab. An anonymous young Muslim woman doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents. Fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment. A girl in Italy had her head shaved by her mother for not wearing hijab.

Other women and girls have been killed or threatened, or live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab. But where are the feminists standing in solidarity with them?

“Staten Island fugitive arraigned, held without bail in Staten Island slay of Muslim activist daughter,” by Rocco Parascandola, New York Daily News, December 22, 2020:

A former Olympic boxer charged with the strangulation of his daughter — an activist for the rights of Muslim women — was arraigned on murder charges Tuesday and ordered held without bail, the Staten Island district attorney said.

Kabary Salem, 52, was extradited from Kuwait on Friday, ending a year-long manhunt that started shortly after his daughter, Ola Salem, 25, was found strangled in Bloomingdale Park, a 138-acre park on the South Shore of Staten Island, the morning of Oct. 24, 2019.

Salem fled the country, possibly spending time in Egypt, authorities said — and even tried to throw investigators off his trail by telling The New York Times his daughter had complained to him that she was being tailed by another car on the highway.

“I want to know what happened to her, what is the reason for that, but no one tells me,” he told the news outlet. “I am just waiting.

“She was a really good, beautiful girl.”

Kabary Salem was indicted by a grand jury Nov. 3 and charged with murder, manslaughter, concealment of a human corpse and strangulation….

It’s unclear what sparked the violence. The DA’s office wouldn’t comment on a report that the father wasn’t happy with the man his daughter was dating.A source who knew the daughter told the Daily News she was becoming more Westernized and didn’t want to wear her hijab.

“She was very outspoken,” the source said. “She wasn’t timid.”

“She was becoming Americanized,” the source said….

The suspect was a top boxer in Egypt and competed in the 1992 and 1996 Olympics. His daughter also boxed and had dedicated her life to championing the rights of Muslim woman.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CUNY Enraged That Social Media Giants Dropped Event Featuring a Terrorist

Somalia: Sharia court cuts off man’s hand for stealing one dollar

Official Palestinian Authority TV: Jihadi who murdered pregnant woman and her five-year-old son is ‘heroic’

UK: 37 probes into child sex exploitation in Telford collapse without a single conviction

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How $10 Million for Gender Programs in Pakistan Got Tied to a COVID Relief Bill

/in , , , , /by

Hours before lawmakers voted on a multi-trillion dollar government funding package that included a $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill, congressional aides were spotted wheeling in the legislation.

It ran 5,593 pages.

“You’d have to read 560 pages an hour to finish it before midnight,” observed NBC News correspondent Garrett Haake.

Lawmakers did not wait until midnight to pass the legislation, however.

“The Senate passed the massive year-end legislation combining $900 billion in pandemic relief with $1.4 trillion to fund federal agencies through fiscal 2021,” Bloomberg reported. “The House passed the legislation earlier Monday night. The total bill is worth more than $2.3 trillion, including support for small businesses impacted by the pandemic, $600 payments for most individuals, supplemental unemployment insurance, regular funding for federal agencies and a bevy of tax breaks for companies.”

So how did lawmakers read 560 pages an hour before voting on the bill? The answer is simple: they didn’t. In fact, there was a great deal of confusion—in both media and Congress—on what precisely lawmakers were voting on. (More on that later.)

Naturally, perhaps, there was some bipartisan anger over the process.

“Congress is expected to vote on the second largest bill in US history today,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), “as of about 1pm, members don’t even have the legislative text of it yet.”

Despite her reservations, Ocasio-Cortez voted in favor of the bill. Others held out, however.

“No member can honestly say they know exactly what they voted for this evening,” said Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who voted against the legislation. “That is reason alone to vote no.”

Gosar was right. FEE’s covered at length on Monday many of the provisions contained in the COVID-19 relief bill, highlighting its many glaring problems. But because of its massive length, we still don’t know everything in the package—which is several bills tied into one.

As Yahoo Finance reports, some of the lesser-known provisions “have raised some eyebrows.”

“Among them are a pair of assistance programs in Pakistan, whereby $15 million will be put toward “democracy programs” and $10 million will be distributed to ‘gender programs,’” reports Fox News correspondent Brittany De Lea.

You read that correctly. But technically this provision—and other defense measures such as $73 million in spending for Israel’s Iron Dome 9 defense system —is not part of the COVID relief package. It’s part of the defense bill contained in the $1.4 trillion omnibus that was bound up with the COVID relief bill.

So while the Pakistani gender programs were not technically included in the COVID relief bill, the end result is much the same. US senators could not vote for COVID relief without voting for gender programs in Pakistan, $35 million for abstinence programs, and tax changes for owners of race horses. (The process in the House was a bit more complicated.)

This is a slap in the face to Americans. During a year in which tens of millions of Americans were forced out of work and hundreds of thousands of businesses were destroyed, lawmakers could not even offer a clean relief bill.

At the risk of stating the obvious, many believe a relief bill passed during a deadly pandemic should focus on relief for individuals and businesses adversely impacted by the pandemic.

So naturally, many on Twitter did not react positively to the revelation that the COVID relief bill and the omnibus were, in a sense, mixed together.

People are right to see that tying COVID relief to defense provisions is, well, stupid. But there’s a phenomenon that helps explain why this happens. It’s called logrolling.

Logrolling is essentially the trading of favors among legislators for mutual benefit. Bills often get passed by winning the support of lawmakers by including provisions that benefit their special interests, but which may not align with any public good. As a result, successful legislation tends to be chock full of special-interest spending.

This trap is highlighted by “public choice” economics, which assumes that politicians vote to forward their own interests just like everyone else. In this case, however, they impose costs on the country in exchange for a big benefit to a special interest group who supports them.

If you’re wondering how a vote for COVID relief for Americans becomes tied to $10 million for gender programs in Pakistan and hundreds of millions of dollars in defense for another country, look to the incentives lurking within government institutions.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

San Francisco Sees More Overdose Deaths Than Covid Deaths in 2020

/in , , , , , , /by

Data show alarming trends in drug overdoses and suicide as people—especially young people who are least at risk from COVID-19—are forcibly cut off from friends, families, and communities.

It’s quite likely that wherever you are reading this, you are currently subjected to lockdowns, restrictions, regulations, or executive orders to one degree or another, as government officials respond to the coronavirus pandemic with increasing coercion and control. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that US states and cities have “imposed the most extensive restrictions on business and social gatherings” since the spring.

Many argue that these new restrictions are essential for slowing the current surge in coronavirus cases in certain areas, but some public health researchers have pointed out that lockdowns and related government orders that focus entirely on containing COVID-19 cases lead to worse public health outcomes in other areas. This collateral damage from lockdowns is already glaringly apparent. In particular, data show an alarming trend toward drug overdoses and suicide in 2020, as people—especially young people who are least at risk from COVID-19—are forcibly cut off from their friends, families, and communities.

The desperation is revealed in startling new statistics. According to the Associated Press, a total of 621 people have died of drug overdoses this year in San Francisco, compared to 173 deaths in the city from COVID-19. The number of San Francisco drug overdose deaths is up from 441 in 2019. California has enacted some of the strictest public health orders in the country this year, and is still seeing its cases rise.

One survey by YouGov found that 39 percent of respondents who were recovering from an addiction prior to lockdowns have relapsed. Other research shows increasing rates of drug and alcohol abuse in 2020, and the CDC reports that overdose deaths are accelerating during COVID-19.

Federal surveys show that 40 percent of Americans are now grappling with at least one mental health or drug-related problem.

Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, has been critical of widespread lockdowns since the beginning of the pandemic, warning that these coercive strategies would lead to other serious public health harms and increased mortality.

“The current lockdown strategy has led to many excess deaths, both from COVID-19 and from the collateral damage on other health outcomes,” Kulldorff recently told Newsweek. “A focused protection strategy, as outlined in the Great Barrington Declaration, would minimize disease and mortality by better protecting older and other high risk people while letting the young live near normal lives.”

Kulldorff also suggests that new data showing US excess deaths in 2020 for people ages 25-44 are mostly due to the collateral damage caused by lockdown policies.

In addition to rising drug and alcohol abuse and overdose deaths, suicidal thoughts and attempts are also increasing this year. The Washington Post reports that depression and anxiety have surged since the arrival of the coronavirus.

“Federal surveys show that 40 percent of Americans are now grappling with at least one mental health or drug-related problem. But young adults have been hit harder than any other age group, with 75 percent struggling,” the Post reports. “Even more alarming, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently asked young adults if they had thought about killing themselves in the past 30 days, 1 in 4 said they had.”

The Post explains that we won’t have accurate data on suicide rates for 2020 until another couple of years, due to slow reporting mechanisms. But state and city data for some areas suggest disturbing suicide numbers this year, including in Oregon’s Columbia County where suicides by summertime had already exceeded the area’s 2019 total, and DuPage County near Chicago reports a 23 percent increase in suicides over last year. Other large counties in the US have seen similarly ominous trends, and in Japan, more people died of suicide in the month of October alone than have died from COVID-19 this entire year.

As families weigh the trade-offs this holiday season between social isolation to slow the spread of coronavirus and the harms that this separation can cause, many of them are choosing to ignore public health warnings to avoid travel and holiday gatherings. The New York Times reports that millions of people have passed through airport security checkpoints this week, while The Wall Street Journal indicates that nearly 85 million Americans are expected to travel between Dec. 23 and Jan. 3, a decline of just under 30 percent from last year.

More families may be seeing the damage these lockdowns and related policies are causing their loved ones and are no longer willing to comply with draconian orders to stay away from others. Their decision may be made easier when they see public health officials and politicians personally violating the holiday travel and gathering warnings and rules they thrust on others.

COVID-19 should be taken seriously as a public health threat, but so too should the harms of lockdowns and government orders that are leading to record numbers of drug overdose deaths and suicides, along with other types of collateral damage such as rising global poverty and declining cancer screenings.

While public health and elected officials remain singularly focused on COVID-19, families gathering this holiday season recognize that ensuring the overall health and well-being of their loved ones extends beyond one virus.

COLUMN BY

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Calls Massive Spending Bill a ‘Disgrace,’ Says He Won’t Sign It

/in , , , , , /by

For those of you who were shocked, dismayed, stunned, depressed yesterday when you began hearing about what was in a bill passed by both Houses of Congress that was supposedly a COVID relief package, you got some solace later in the evening when President Trump went before the American people to say he would not sign the bill in its present form.

He stopped short of using the word “veto,” but said he won’t sign this monstrosity.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1341537886315950080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1341537886315950080%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ffraudscrookscriminals.com%2F2020%2F12%2F23%2Ftrump-calls-massive-spending-bill-a-disgrace-says-he-wont-sign-it%2F

By the way, only six brave Republican Senators voted against the 5,000 plus page bill that NO one has read:

Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rick Scott, R-Fla., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.***

In the House it was 359 for and 53 against, see here.

Watch our President’s four minute display of leadership above (I see much of the media is calling it a rant).   He asks why we are sending billions abroad when Americans are hurting through no fault of their own.

Here is just one of dozens of news stories on the President’s big surprise to our disgusting House and Senate.

From the BBC:

Trump urges Congress to amend ‘wasteful’ coronavirus aid bill

In a video message posted on Twitter, he said the package “really is a disgrace”, full of “wasteful” items.

“It’s called the Covid relief bill, but it has almost nothing to do with Covid,” he said.

See Rush Limbaugh’s extensive commentary on the bill from yesterday afternoon. He laments that the rats are back at work as they assume the Trump era is over. https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/12/22/nothing-changes-in-washington-the-covid-relief-bill-should-be-vetoed/

The $900bn bill includes one-off $600 payments to most Americans, but Mr Trump said the figure should be $2,000.

His statement stunned Capitol Hill.

Republicans and Democrats have been negotiating a coronavirus stimulus rescue package since July and Mr Trump – who has largely stayed out of the talks – had been expected to sign the legislation into law following its passage through Congress on Monday night.

[….]

However, Mr Trump has not specifically said he would veto the bill. Even if he does, US media say there could be enough votes from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to override his veto.

[….]

In Tuesday night’s message from the White House, Mr Trump baulked at spending in the bill on other countries, arguing that this money should go to struggling Americans.

He said: “This bill contains $85.5m for assistance to Cambodia, $134m to Burma, $1.3bn for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment, $25m for democracy and gender programmes in Pakistan, $505m to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.”

The president questioned why the Kennedy Center, a performing arts complex in Washington DC, was set to receive $40m when it is not open, and more than $1bn has been allocated to museums and galleries in the capital. [Which are also  mostly not open!—ed]

The President has nothing to lose now if he vetoes the monster that will put the US in even greater debt (to China?) for generations to come.  It will reaffirm his strong leadership that will be needed for the years ahead.

Yeah, they can override his veto, but then we will all know who puts Americans First and who puts us last. After all, the midterm elections are not far off.

*** These six should join Senator-elect Tuberville (and many Members of the House) in opposing a Biden/Harris presidency on January 6th.  What have they got to lose?

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Law Prohibits Pence From Accepting Electoral Votes From Fraudulently Certified States — Constitutional Lawyer

/in , , , , , /by

Reject the six corrupt states because of fraud.

Unclean hands.

Law Prohibits Pence From Accepting Electoral Votes From Fraudulently Certified States – Constitutional Lawyer

Ivan Raiklin says Vice President Pence can request states send Electoral College slates that actually reflect the will of the people

By Tom Pappert, National File, December 20, 2020

Law Prohibits Pence From Accepting Electoral Votes From Fraudulently Certified States – Constitutional Lawyer

Citing the United States Constitution and U.S. Code, Constitutional Lawyer Ivan Raiklin says it is Vice President Mike Pence’s duty to instruct states to expeditiously send their Electoral College Certificates immediately if they have not been received.

U.S.C. 12 explains that “When no certificate of vote and list mentioned in sections 9 and 11 of this title from any State shall have been received by the President of the Senate or by the Archivist of the United States by the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate … shall request, by the most expeditious method available, the secretary of state of the State to send up the certificate…”

Beyond the allegations and evidence of widespread fraud presented by both President Donald Trump’s legal team and independent lawyers and witnesses across the United States, several states have now sent competing slates of delegates to Washington, D.C.

Additionally, Republicans in Pennsylvania and Arizona have asked the U.S. Congress not to accept the votes assigned by the state’s Secretary of State, suggesting they represent fraudulent election results.

Should Pence take this action, he is then instructed by the law to request these states immediately send accurate Electoral College Certificates before January 6.

Raiklin told National File that Pence will essentially force states to reclaim their Constitutional power to appoint Electoral College votes.

“That forces State Legislatures’ hand,” said Raiklin. “Pence can force the legislatures to reclaim their Constitutional power, hold a session, and appoint the Electoral College votes themselves as the Supreme Court did not address this issue.”

According to Raiklin, the Constitution would allow these states to be completely stricken from the Electoral College if Pence should refuse to accept them, and the number of Electoral College votes required to win would shrink dramatically from 270. President Trump would win under a simple majority of Electoral College votes, 232-227, without any risk of triggering a contingent election.

While many legal scholars have indicated there is ambiguity about how Electoral Votes are accepted, the media has maintained that Biden’s electoral win was secured on December 14, and will be confirmed on January 20. However, Raiklin tells National File he is willing to defend his analysis.

“I challenge any attorney anywhere to fact check this. If you have a different legal analysis, prove it.”

Should Republicans push for a contingent election, President Trump’s victory would again rely on Pence to cast the tie breaking vote after the House and Senate are deadlocked on whether battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin should be stricken from the total. Should neither candidate reach 270 votes, a contingent election would almost certainly see President Trump reelected by a vote cast by individual states, not Representatives, in the House, and Vice President Pence reelected in the Senate.

President Trump and his Republican allies in the House of Representatives and potentially the Senate have been preparing for an Electoral College contest on January 6 that may well lead to a contingent election. According to Raiklin, this would spare the country from this almost wholly uncharted territory.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.